C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
'Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) talked to NPR’s Steve Inskeep [last Thursday], and the conservative lawmaker expressed support for the ongoing investigation into Donald Trump’s Russia scandal, saying it’d be “healthy” to separate facts from fiction.
But note what happened when the discussion turned to the investigation into whether the president obstructed justice. From the NPR transcript:
SCHWEIKERT: I’m at the point where, you know, we also have to be real careful from the standpoint we have a president that’s not from the political class. The learning of the disciplined use of language and what certain words mean in our context. If you’re not from this world, you may not have developed that discipline. But understand, sometimes…
INSKEEP: Although he’s got an entire staff. He’s got scores of lawyers. He’s got people who could advise him on the law and on procedures if he wanted to listen to those things.
This brings us back to the line of argument known in some circles as the “clueless, not criminal” defense. Trump may have obstructed justice, the defense goes, but he didn’t really mean to: the president simply doesn’t know enough about politics or the law to know where the boundaries are. We should hold Trump to a lower standard, the argument implicitly suggests, because he doesn’t really know what he’s doing.
Or as Schweikert put it, the president is new to “the political class,” which means he lacks “the disciplined use of language.”
If this sounds familiar, it’s because Schweikert isn’t the only one making the argument. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), among others, argued earlier this week, “The president is new at this, he is new to government, and so he probably wasn’t steeped in the long running protocols that establish the relationships between DOJ, FBI, and White Houses. He is just new to this.”
This is a very bad argument, which does not improve with repetition.
Just on the surface, it’s a reversal of sorts for Republicans, who’ve gone from saying, “Trump didn’t obstruct justice,” to effectively saying, “Well, maybe he did, but it’s only because he’s ignorant.”
But even putting aside questions of consistency, the “clueless, not criminal” tack is a disaster. As Inskeep reminded Schweikert, if the president wasn’t sure about the legal limits of intervening in an ongoing investigation, he has an army of experts whom he can call on, 24-7, to bring him up to speed.
And for a law-and-order party, ignorance of the law shouldn’t be a legitimate excuse, anyway.’
The 'clueless, not criminal' Trump defense comes up far short
True.
Moreover, ‘clueless, not criminal’ is also not a defense against impeaching Trump; a president may be impeached for reasons other than having committed a criminal act.
Indeed, Trump may be impeached for any number of misdemeanors pursuant to Article ll, Section 4 of the Constitution: his baseless attacks of the judiciary, his providing Russians with sensitive intelligence in violation of his oath of office, his incessant lying, and his firing of Comey in an effort to undermine the Russia investigation have all reflected poorly on the presidency and demonstrated Trump unfit to be president, where his removal from office via the impeachment process is more than justified.
But note what happened when the discussion turned to the investigation into whether the president obstructed justice. From the NPR transcript:
SCHWEIKERT: I’m at the point where, you know, we also have to be real careful from the standpoint we have a president that’s not from the political class. The learning of the disciplined use of language and what certain words mean in our context. If you’re not from this world, you may not have developed that discipline. But understand, sometimes…
INSKEEP: Although he’s got an entire staff. He’s got scores of lawyers. He’s got people who could advise him on the law and on procedures if he wanted to listen to those things.
This brings us back to the line of argument known in some circles as the “clueless, not criminal” defense. Trump may have obstructed justice, the defense goes, but he didn’t really mean to: the president simply doesn’t know enough about politics or the law to know where the boundaries are. We should hold Trump to a lower standard, the argument implicitly suggests, because he doesn’t really know what he’s doing.
Or as Schweikert put it, the president is new to “the political class,” which means he lacks “the disciplined use of language.”
If this sounds familiar, it’s because Schweikert isn’t the only one making the argument. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), among others, argued earlier this week, “The president is new at this, he is new to government, and so he probably wasn’t steeped in the long running protocols that establish the relationships between DOJ, FBI, and White Houses. He is just new to this.”
This is a very bad argument, which does not improve with repetition.
Just on the surface, it’s a reversal of sorts for Republicans, who’ve gone from saying, “Trump didn’t obstruct justice,” to effectively saying, “Well, maybe he did, but it’s only because he’s ignorant.”
But even putting aside questions of consistency, the “clueless, not criminal” tack is a disaster. As Inskeep reminded Schweikert, if the president wasn’t sure about the legal limits of intervening in an ongoing investigation, he has an army of experts whom he can call on, 24-7, to bring him up to speed.
And for a law-and-order party, ignorance of the law shouldn’t be a legitimate excuse, anyway.’
The 'clueless, not criminal' Trump defense comes up far short
True.
Moreover, ‘clueless, not criminal’ is also not a defense against impeaching Trump; a president may be impeached for reasons other than having committed a criminal act.
Indeed, Trump may be impeached for any number of misdemeanors pursuant to Article ll, Section 4 of the Constitution: his baseless attacks of the judiciary, his providing Russians with sensitive intelligence in violation of his oath of office, his incessant lying, and his firing of Comey in an effort to undermine the Russia investigation have all reflected poorly on the presidency and demonstrated Trump unfit to be president, where his removal from office via the impeachment process is more than justified.
